CTNF 18/578,100 CTNF 89283 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103 Examiner has found the pending claims to include a substantial number of recitations drawn to intended use. Examiner has provided parallel rejections that address the intended uses, both implicitly as generically claimed with anticipation rejections and explicitly as generically claimed using obviousness rejections, assuming, arguendo, that the claim recitations drawn to intended uses of the claimed apparatus amount to more than an intended use that is fairly and properly addressed by the anticipation rejections set forth below. Examiner does not concede the same, rather has provided the parallel rejections to expedite examination. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Ishikawa et al (US 2018/0040856) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ishikawa et al (US 2018/0040856) in view of Clark et al (US 2020/0006100). Regarding claim 1: Ishikawa teaches an equipment for manufacturing a light-emitting device (manufacturing apparatus, 100, of a light-emitting element) [fig 4 & 0065] comprising: a first cluster (treatment device A) [fig 4 & 0065]; and a second cluster (treatment device B), wherein the second cluster (treatment device B) is connected to the first cluster (treatment device A) through a first buffer chamber (421) [fig 4 & 0065]. The claim limitations “wherein when an object to be processed in which an organic compound film, a first inorganic film, a second inorganic film, and a resist mask are stacked in this order is set in the first cluster, the first cluster is configured to etch the first inorganic film and the second inorganic film, to form an organic compound layer by etching the organic compound film, to remove the resist mask, to remove the second inorganic film, and to form a third inorganic film covering a side surface of the organic compound layer, and wherein in an inert gas atmosphere, the second cluster is configured to coat the third inorganic film with a resin, to remove an unnecessary portion of the resin, and to cure the resin” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Furthermore, inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young , 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto , 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). No specific structural features are explicitly or functionally claimed in association with any of the first and second clusters. Alternatively, in the art of multi-chamber substrate processing, Clark explicitly teaches providing clusters with any number of apparatuses for performing any number of processes (including film formation, etching, and deposition) for the purpose of providing a high-volume manufacturing system for processing and measuring workpieces in a controlled environment at reduced cost with improvement to yield, defectivity levels and EPE [fig 8A, abstract & 0086-0115, 0195]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant's invention was effectively filed to have provided the manufacturing equipment of Ishikawa with any number of apparatuses for performing any number of processes (including film formation, etching, and deposition) in order to provide a high-volume manufacturing system for processing and measuring workpieces in a controlled environment at reduced cost with improvement to yield, defectivity levels and EPE [Clark - abstract & 0086-0115, 0195]. Regarding claim 2: Ishikawa teaches the first cluster (treatment device A) comprises a first apparatus (first 151 of A), a second apparatus (second 151 of A), a third apparatus (third 151 of A), and a fourth apparatus (fourth 151 of A), and wherein the second cluster (treatment device B) comprises a fifth apparatus (first 151 of B), a sixth apparatus (second 151 of B), a seventh apparatus (third 151 of B), an eighth apparatus (fourth 151 of B), and a ninth apparatus (fifth 151 of B) [fig 4 & 0023, 0065]. The claim limitations “dry etching”, “film-formation”, “coating”, “baking”, “light-exposure”, and “development” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Alternatively, in the art of multi-chamber substrate processing, Clark explicitly teaches providing clusters with any number of apparatuses for performing any number of processes (including film formation, etching, deposition, thermal treating, and UV treating) for the purpose of providing a high-volume manufacturing system for processing and measuring workpieces in a controlled environment at reduced cost with improvement to yield, defectivity levels and EPE [fig 8A, abstract & 0086-0115, 0195]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant's invention was effectively filed to have provided the manufacturing equipment of Ishikawa with any number of apparatuses for performing any number of processes (including film formation, etching, deposition, thermal treating, and UV treating) in order to provide a high-volume manufacturing system for processing and measuring workpieces in a controlled environment at reduced cost with improvement to yield, defectivity levels and EPE [Clark - abstract & 0086-0115, 0195]. Regarding claims 3-4: The claim limitations “wherein the second dry etching apparatus is configured to perform ashing” and “wherein the film-formation apparatus is an ALD apparatus” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Alternatively, in the art of multi-chamber substrate processing, Clark explicitly teaches providing clusters with any number of apparatuses for performing any number of processes (including film formation and etching) for the purpose of providing a high-volume manufacturing system for processing and measuring workpieces in a controlled environment at reduced cost with improvement to yield, defectivity levels and EPE [fig 8A, abstract & 0086-0115, 0195]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant's invention was effectively filed to have provided the manufacturing equipment of Ishikawa with any number of apparatuses for performing any number of processes (including film formation and etching) in order to provide a high-volume manufacturing system for processing and measuring workpieces in a controlled environment at reduced cost with improvement to yield, defectivity levels and EPE [Clark - abstract & 0086-0115, 0195]. Regarding claim 5: Ishikawa teaches a third cluster (treatment device C), wherein the third cluster (treatment device C) is connected to the second cluster (treatment device B) through a second buffer chamber (422) [fig 4 & 0065]. The claim limitations “wherein the third cluster is configured to etch the third inorganic film and the first inorganic film, with use of the resin as a mask” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Alternatively, in the art of multi-chamber substrate processing, Clark explicitly teaches providing clusters with any number of apparatuses for performing any number of processes (including etching) for the purpose of providing a high-volume manufacturing system for processing and measuring workpieces in a controlled environment at reduced cost with improvement to yield, defectivity levels and EPE [fig 8A, abstract & 0086-0115, 0195]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant's invention was effectively filed to have provided the manufacturing equipment of Ishikawa with any number of apparatuses for performing any number of processes (including etching) in order to provide a high-volume manufacturing system for processing and measuring workpieces in a controlled environment at reduced cost with improvement to yield, defectivity levels and EPE [Clark - abstract & 0086-0115, 0195]. Regarding claims 6-7: Ishikawa teaches the third cluster (treatment device C) comprises a first apparatus (first 151 of C) and a second apparatus (second 151 of C) [fig 4 & 0023, 0065]. The claim limitations “dry etching” and “wet etching” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Alternatively, in the art of multi-chamber substrate processing, Clark explicitly teaches providing clusters with any number of apparatuses for performing any number of processes (including etching) for the purpose of providing a high-volume manufacturing system for processing and measuring workpieces in a controlled environment at reduced cost with improvement to yield, defectivity levels and EPE [fig 8A, abstract & 0086-0115, 0195]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant's invention was effectively filed to have provided the manufacturing equipment of Ishikawa with any number of apparatuses for performing any number of processes (including etching) in order to provide a high-volume manufacturing system for processing and measuring workpieces in a controlled environment at reduced cost with improvement to yield, defectivity levels and EPE [Clark - abstract & 0086-0115, 0195]. Regarding claim 8: Ishikawa teaches a third cluster (treatment device C), wherein the third cluster (treatment device C) is connected to the second cluster (treatment device B) through a second buffer chamber (422) [fig 4 & 0065]. The claim limitations “wherein the third cluster is configured to etch the third inorganic film with use of the resin as a mask, to make an end portion of the resin recede by ashing, and to etch the first inorganic film” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Alternatively, in the art of multi-chamber substrate processing, Clark explicitly teaches providing clusters with any number of apparatuses for performing any number of processes (including etching) for the purpose of providing a high-volume manufacturing system for processing and measuring workpieces in a controlled environment at reduced cost with improvement to yield, defectivity levels and EPE [fig 8A, abstract & 0086-0115, 0195]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant's invention was effectively filed to have provided the manufacturing equipment of Ishikawa with any number of apparatuses for performing any number of processes (including etching) in order to provide a high-volume manufacturing system for processing and measuring workpieces in a controlled environment at reduced cost with improvement to yield, defectivity levels and EPE [Clark - abstract & 0086-0115, 0195]. Regarding claims 9-10: Ishikawa teaches the third cluster (treatment device C) comprises a first apparatus (first 151 of C), a second apparatus (second 151 of C), and a third apparatus (third 151 of C) [fig 4 & 0023, 0065]. The claim limitations “dry etching”, “configured to perform ashing or an ashing apparatus”, and “wet etching” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Alternatively, in the art of multi-chamber substrate processing, Clark explicitly teaches providing clusters with any number of apparatuses for performing any number of processes (including etching) for the purpose of providing a high-volume manufacturing system for processing and measuring workpieces in a controlled environment at reduced cost with improvement to yield, defectivity levels and EPE [fig 8A, abstract & 0086-0115, 0195]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant's invention was effectively filed to have provided the manufacturing equipment of Ishikawa with any number of apparatuses for performing any number of processes (including etching) in order to provide a high-volume manufacturing system for processing and measuring workpieces in a controlled environment at reduced cost with improvement to yield, defectivity levels and EPE [Clark - abstract & 0086-0115, 0195]. Regarding claim 11: Ishikawa teaches a fourth cluster (treatment device D), wherein the fourth cluster (treatment device D) is connected to the third cluster (treatment device C) through a third buffer chamber (423) [fig 4 & 0065]. The claim limitations “wherein the fourth cluster is configured to form a conductive layer and an insulating layer over the organic compound layer” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Alternatively, in the art of multi-chamber substrate processing, Clark explicitly teaches providing clusters with any number of apparatuses for performing any number of processes (including film formation) for the purpose of providing a high-volume manufacturing system for processing and measuring workpieces in a controlled environment at reduced cost with improvement to yield, defectivity levels and EPE [fig 8A, abstract & 0086-0115, 0195]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant's invention was effectively filed to have provided the manufacturing equipment of Ishikawa with any number of apparatuses for performing any number of processes (including film formation and etching) in order to provide a high-volume manufacturing system for processing and measuring workpieces in a controlled environment at reduced cost with improvement to yield, defectivity levels and EPE [Clark - abstract & 0086-0115, 0195]. Regarding claim 12: Ishikawa teaches the fourth cluster (treatment device D) comprises two or more of a first apparatus (first 151 of D), a second apparatus (second 151 of D), and a third apparatus (third 151 of D) [fig 4 & 0023, 0065]. The claim limitations “evaporation”, “sputtering”, and “ALD” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Alternatively, in the art of multi-chamber substrate processing, Clark explicitly teaches providing clusters with any number of apparatuses for performing any number of processes (including film formation) for the purpose of providing a high-volume manufacturing system for processing and measuring workpieces in a controlled environment at reduced cost with improvement to yield, defectivity levels and EPE [fig 8A, abstract & 0086-0115, 0195]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant's invention was effectively filed to have provided the manufacturing equipment of Ishikawa with any number of apparatuses for performing any number of processes (including film formation) in order to provide a high-volume manufacturing system for processing and measuring workpieces in a controlled environment at reduced cost with improvement to yield, defectivity levels and EPE [Clark - abstract & 0086-0115, 0195]. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yamazaki et al (US 2004/0040504) , Nozawa et al (US 2009/0206728) , and Yamazaki et al (US 2023/0052149) teach equipment comprising a first cluster and a second cluster [fig 1, 4, and 1, respectively] . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William F Kraig can be reached at (571)272-8660. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896 Application/Control Number: 18/578,100 Page 2 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 18/578,100 Page 4 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 18/578,100 Page 5 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 18/578,100 Page 6 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 18/578,100 Page 7 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 18/578,100 Page 8 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 18/578,100 Page 9 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 18/578,100 Page 10 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 18/578,100 Page 11 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 18/578,100 Page 12 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 18/578,100 Page 13 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 18/578,100 Page 14 Art Unit: 2896
Prosecution Insights